1. Field of the Invention
The present invention is directed to a method and system for providing access and control to information databases and, more particularly, to a system for local exchange carriers to control access to proprietary information in an unbundled network environment.
2. Background
The current telecommunications market is dominated by a group of incumbent local exchange carriers ("ILECs") that own switching infrastructures and possess intelligent network capabilities. Each ILEC provides local telephone service for a particular geographic region of the country. This monopoly has existed for many years, thus making it very difficult, and nigh impossible, for a small carrier to enter a market and establish a foothold. A carrier would be required to create its own switching infrastructure and intelligent network capabilities. Such a project would require the carrier to construct new telephone lines and cables, route those lines to each desired home, and create the necessary switching functionality. Clearly, this effort would cost millions, perhaps billions, of dollars for each emerging carrier.
Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC has mandated certain "interconnection" requirements to make it easier for new carriers to enter a local telecommunications market. In FCC Report & Order in the matter of Local Competition, docket 96-98 released Aug. 8, 1996, the FCC required ILECs to "unbundle" certain elements of their existing telecommunications network. "Unbundling" is a regulatory requirement providing competitive local exchange carriers ("CLECs") or other information providers the ability to separately lease discrete functional components of an ILEC's network to provide service. An unbundled local loop, for example, is an ILEC-provided transmission path between, and including, the customer network interface (e.g., the jack) located at the end-customer's premises and the central office loop termination located in the ILEC's central office building. As another example, an unbundled port provides a CLEC with local switching functionality, in addition to the local loop, on an ILEC's switch as an alternative to providing a stand-alone switch. Numerous components may be unbundled, including the local loop, switch ports, and Advanced Intelligent Network ("AIN") triggers.
The unbundling requirement implicitly creates three types of local exchange carriers within a particular market. "Type A" LEC's, typically ILEC's, own and operate their own switching infrastructure and associate intelligent network database. "Type B" LEC's rely on an ILEC's switching infrastructure, but provide their own IN databases for competitive service differentiation (e.g., additional calling name service information). "Type C" LEC's rely entirely on the ILEC's switching and IN databases. Since Type A LEC's presently exist in the form of ILECs, the unbundling requirement brings Type B and Type C LEC's to the local marketplace.
As greater competition occurs in the telecommunications market, LEC's will look for ways to offer unique services to its subscribers. In the course of offering such services, LEC's will want to retain control of and limit access to subscriber information. For example, an LEC may wish to make its line information database ("LIDB") or calling name information accessible only to certain networks. In addition, an LEC may wish to store subscriber information in its own internal database(s) rather than an ILEC's database.
In the present scenario, however, only Type A LEC's have the requisite control over information databases and access to those databases. Type B and Type C LEC's (those LEC's created by the FCC's mandate) lack the ability to control access to their subscriber information. Type B LEC's must store proprietary subscriber information in the ILEC's databases since no current mechanisms are in place for partitioning databases across LEC's. Type C LEC's must also rely on the ILEC's databases since a Type C LEC completely reuses the ILEC's infrastructure. Moreover, Type C LEC's are subject to agreements between the host ILEC and third parties. Thus, for example, calling name information regarding a Type C LEC's customers will be accessible to the host ILEC as well as other carriers with whom the host ILEC has interconnection agreements.
As a result of this scenario, CLECs lack the ability to control access to their proprietary customer information. Thus, CLECs are not able to gain the competitive advantage sought by the FCC's unbundling requirement.